:iagree: with all the posts. I think the admittance age for collage should be higher, with special circumstances allowed. Then you'll get people who just might have some sense (generally, I know there are some good young people out there.) For the record, I'm 25.

Dh hates us taking ours off, even to clean them. We have a de-ringing and re-ringing ceremony where we have to be kissing as they are coming on or off :tongue_smilie:

You're not alone, ds4.99 and ds2.65 are driving me :willy_nilly:

It's not a man; it's Mrs. Mungo's alter ego :D

Bumping you up because I don't have any advice but I hate it when posts go unanswered :( Have you tried searches?

With facebook a while back I realized that I was posting a LOT more about my kids than any of the other moms. But it's my main way of communicating stuff about them to my mother's side of the family and my husband's family, where these are the only grand-kids/great-grand kids. That being a smaller group than the rest, I made a facebook group I named "Kid Updates" and now I post almost exclusively about them to that group where I know the people want to hear daily about the cuteness. But that doesn't work for everything. If people are that bothered by what you have to say, have them hide your wall posts so they can only see them if they want to look, but they can still be "friends" with you. But that only works on facebook. I only have one friend with kids, so it's not as frequent a problem as it may be for some. Though when her daughter was just turned 5 and ds#2 was 28 months he knew his alphabet better than she did, and that's kinda hard to hide since his favorite game was to point out letters, name them, and then say their sound.

I never wear perfume somewhere new because I don't know if I'll run into someone with an allergy/smell sensitivity. I wear a certain scent on dates because dh really likes it, and I wear another scent that I love on special occasions because it makes me feel more "dressed up" and special. But I don't have anything I wear at home; although I have a fantasy of having a certain scent for each season that would be part of my children's memories of me when they're all grown up.

:iagree: And then I lose the flashcards in the piles of school papers and lists and schedules and I have to make MORE flashcards :D

You know you're a DEVOTED boardie when you've already made your badges.

:iagree:

From inference only, I thought that it means that the man is still....producing and distributing "seed"... and that the woman did not take any form of birth control (including pill or other.) The term "quiverfull" makes me think it's based on something in the Bible, but I have no idea what/where. :confused:

(Power point slides from first lecture/sermon mentioned in my original post.) What were the assumptions that led to the scientific acceptance of atheistic evolution? The Universe may be eternal – extending infinitely into the past and infinitely into the future. Life, especially simple forms of life, can and does arise from non-living material. Life is probably common in the universe, because there are many planets suitable for life. The individual cells that make up all living things are simple, consisting of little more that protoplasm. Mutations are a viable source of new characteristics within the genetics of organisms. Throughout the history of life on earth, environmental changes have been gradual, giving organisms time to adapt. There is no way that modern humans could possibly be descended from one human male and female. Assumption #1: The Universe is eternal – extending infinitely into the past and infinitely into the future. This is an absolute requirement for atheism. If the universe has not always been here, if it had a beginning then there is a God. This is nothing new. The one thing that all great thinkers for thousands of years have agreed upon is this. In the middle ages, Jewish, Christian and Muslim philosophers developed it into the Kalam cosmological argument. The Kalam cosmological argument. 1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence. 2) The universe has a beginning of its existence. Therefore: 3) The universe has a cause of its existence. 4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God. Therefore: 5) God exists – and He must be infinitely wise and powerful The Kalam cosmological argument – the objections: 1) The Universe is all there is. It is eternal – it never had a beginning and will never end 2) Who created God? Why does he not need a cause? These two objections held up until the 20th century The Kalam cosmological argument – the objections fall The first objection to fall was the need for God to have a cause. Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity proved that time was a part of the physical universe Therefore the creator of the physical universe must exist outside of time. He did not need a cause. When a reporter asked him what had caused the Big Bang, he reportedly answered, “God you idiot!†THIS IS KEY – THE “BIG BANG†BEGAN AS, AND STILL IS A CREATIONIST POSITION. 1929 - Edwin Hubble discovers the “red shift†in distant Galaxies –indicating that they are moving away from earth. This supports the “Big Bang†model and wins Einstein’s support. The Big Bang proofs build 1948 - “Cosmic microwave background radiation†is predicted by Ralph Alpher, Robert Herman, and George Gamow, as a result of the Big Bang. 1965 - Penzias and Wilson discover the predicted microwave background radiation, providing another line of evidence supporting the Big Bang. They share the 1978 Nobel prize in physics for their discovery. 1989 – Atheist John Maddox, writing in scientific journal Nature, predicts that the Big Bang model will not survive the initial observations from the Hubble Space Telescope. 1990 – The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) predicts that the Big Bang model will die in the next 10 years 1990 to Present - Evidence supporting the Big Bang, much of it from the Hubble Telescope, continues to build. There are now 16 lines of evidence supporting the Big Bang model. In recent years, all true scientific doubt has been erased. The bottom line is that the science of astronomy points clearly to the existence of God. The atheistic “scientific†response? They continue to rule out the possibility of God and to offer up speculation without evidence as fact. More proof from physics The laws of physics are “fine tuned†to allow our universe and life to exist Over 30 parameters must be exactly right – to an amount equivalent to one atom in the entire known universe! The smallest change and neither life nor the universe could exist This could not happen by mere chance More proof from physics So what is the atheistic response? There must be millions of universes and we just “got lucky†There is absolutely no evidence to support this idea. It is total speculation and the reasoning is circular Plus it only pushes the problem back one step – because even if it is true, what was the cause of millions of universes? 1980's to Present: Large numbers of Astronomers began to investigate religion. (This is for you, Spycar/Bill) One of them, Dr. Robert Jastrow, put it this way: “We have gone as far as we can go, looked as far back as we can look, we have climbed to the top of the mountain and as we pull ourselves up we are greeted by a band of theologians who have been there for centuries.†They looked for a faith that would be compatible with what the science was telling them. They did not have to look far. When they opened the Bible they found a God who existed outside of time. They found a God who was capable of being the cause of the “Big Bangâ€. There was a beginning and God created both the heavens (cosmos) and the earth: (Gen 1:1 NIV) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The God of the Bible exists outside of time – an absolute requirement for the creator of the universe: (Exo 3:14 NIV) God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'" (John 8:58 NIV) "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am! (Psa 90:4 NIV) For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. (2 Pet 3:8 NIV) But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. God has fixed the precisely balanced physical laws of the Universe: (Jer 33:25 NIV) This is what the LORD says: 'If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth.... The heavens were not created in a steady state - they are being "stretched out". This is consistent with the Big Bang model. (Isa 42:5a NIV) This is what God the LORD says-- he who created the heavens and stretched them out.......... (Job 9:8a NIV) He alone stretches out the heavens............. (Psa 104:2 NIV) He wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent (Isa 44:24 NASB) Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone, (Zec 12:1a NIV) This is the word of the LORD concerning Israel. The LORD, who stretches out the heavens............. The Hebrew verb in the above verses indicates an action began in the past and continuing to the present. All of these verses were written thousands of years before modern science – yet they dovetail perfectly with it. The only reason to write these words, to write words thousands of years ahead of their time, is that they were inspired by God himself - the creator of the universe. The Bottom Line: The field of science that looks back to the beginning is not biology or geology – it is astronomy. When we look at the discoveries of modern astronomy, we find positive evidence for the existence of God. When we look at the discoveries of modern astronomy we also find confirmation for our faith. ____________________________________________________ Yes, a pastor is going to be biased. But he still did a really good job, and since the OP said they wanted to teach both sides, I think anyone dismissing the possibility of creation/intelligent design is dismissing the beliefs of the OP. .

Resources on Creation from an Intelligent Design/Old Universe Perspective (Not exhaustive, but enough to get a good start) Films (all are available on Netflix): Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - 2008 - 97 minutes Hosted by Ben Stein, this controversial documentary examines how pro-intelligent design scholars and scientists are often chastised, fired or denied tenured positions by those who believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. Nathan Frankowski's film explores how scientists who believe in God are oppressed and how the acceptance of Darwinism might have played a role in the formation of the Nazi regime. The Privileged Planet - 2004 - 60 minutes Embracing the concept of intelligent design and refuting the theory of evolution, this intriguing video posits that Earth was created not by a series of random events but by a "creative designer" who knew exactly what he was doing. Several proponents of intelligent design, including philosophers and scientists, share their views about this controversial theory and provide evidence that supports their premise. Actor John Rhys-Davies narrates. The Case for a Creator - 2006 - 60 minutes Award-winning journalist and longtime atheist Lee Strobel embarks on an intense search for scientific evidence that God exists. Strobel, a former writer for the Chicago Tribune, questions his lack of faith when his wife converts to Christianity. Based on the New York Times best-seller, The Case for a Creator asks the question: Can science prove what religious leaders and the faithful have always taken for granted? Websites: Discovery Institute of Science and Culture Great site on all intelligent design issues http://www.discovery.org/csc/ Reasons to Believe Evidence from a wide variety scientific disciplines. http://www.reasons.org/ Evidence for God http://www.godandscience.org/ Magis Center of Reason and Faith Excellent work on both the Big Bang creation model and modern physics as evidence for an intelligent creator. Catholic site. http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/ http://www.youtube.com/magisreasonfaith#p/u Books: A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy By Dr. Hugh Ross ISBN-13: 978-1576833759 The Intellectuals Speak Out About God Roy Abraham Varghese (Editor) - Forward by Pres. Ronald Reagan ISBN-13: 978- 0895268273

I'm trying to drink my coffee/tea without sweetening. How long will it take my taste to adjust? :ack2:

DS#1 was :D His birthday is the 14th (he was 10 days overdue :glare:)

That's awesome :D

My fil is a (mostly) retired Free Methodist pastor who recently did a series of sermons on this topic that are avaiable on our church website. Go to the bottom of the page and there is a green button and an orange button under "Read today's devotions" link. The green one is the sermons. Look for the ones by Vince Warde. The first one is from 7/10. These are not your average sermons. My fil did a LOT of research, and the links include books, youtube videos, websites, and other things that I think you would find very useful, even if you don't listen to the sermons (which are more like a classroom lecture, imho.)

:lol::smilielol5:

My 2yo also wakes up from naps sweat-stained and damp hair. I'm not sure I would describe the smell as any of you did, but there is one. I thought that maybe it was because he slept with his mouth open and drooled a lot. :confused:

Krav maga! Okay, so my kids aren't in it yet, but if/when I ever get back to martial arts, I'll be doing Krav maga and I would hope the kids could do the same. It uses your instinctual reflexes and incorporates them into the moves. I took a year of karate and 6 weeks of krav maga and the only stuff I remember is the krav maga.

:smilielol5::smilielol5: But is "decapitated" a word you want other people hearing your baby saying? :D

:party:

:lol: How cute! :D :leaving:

I was an unusual child, in that I watched what my grandparents/legal guardians did with me and my siblings and I thought about how it didn't really work on me or one of my siblings and I decided I wasn't going to do that as an adult (like saying "I'm going to count to three!" and then doing fractions to give the obviously stalling kid more time because they don't really want to punish them.) I was about 5 or 6 when I started doing this. And I remember some of the things and I don't do them. I also observed other kid's parents to see what I liked/wanted as a kid so I would remember to do those, too. To answer the question, I did not go to the opposite extreme because that wouldn't be good for my kids either, but I do not consider myself at a "middle ground" either. I'm where I planned to be.

I must say that (without reading any replies) I am surprised this thread hasn't been locked or deleted yet. I thought we all had better sense than to give this video more views and ratings than it already must have. The title and description is enough, why would anyone want to watch it? I didn't have to listen to the tape of my father beating my little sister (unrelated case to the linked video) to believe it was awful and condem it. I'm disappointed, ladies. I am sure we all revile and condemn it, but did you really need to watch it in the first place? :confused: Isn't there enough awful that you know of, why add this to your memory? Do you really think you'll be able to forget something like that?